Economics is quite literally an axiomatized deductive system, as it derives its thoughts and principles from various established premises regarding human and market behavior, although the basis for such happens to be disputed. Various economic theories, such as Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman"s consumption analysis, monetary history, and the complexities associated with such is all based upon a system which is established in the neoclassical and neoliberal schools of economic thought. On the other hand, the Labor Theory of Value, most closely associated with Marxian economic principles which were also argued by David Ricardo, happen to be based upon a different axiomatized system, which is argued against by the neoclassical and neoliberal schools of economic thought. Additionally, it happens to be that the basis for certain rationale in respect to the difference between neoclassical and neoliberal schools of thought, being the Austrian and Chicago schools, respectively, is the basis of their methodology. For example, famed Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises" magnum opus, Human Action, happened to encompass this very ideal of a differentiation of methodology, while also coming to relatively the same conclusions with the Chicago School. He argued in such that the very foundation of economic theory could rest upon the axiom of human action, being the individual acts taken for subjective reasons by the populous. The opposition to this, Milton Friedman, argued that the basis for economic sciences should be empirical data and research, called the "positivist methodology". As such, Chicago School economic thought treats the field as an economic science, or a natural science, rather than using a priori logic, which is the basis for Austrian School economic thought. Much like Euclidean geometry, both economic schools approach economics on the basis of certain axioms, being the inefficiency of centralized fiscal systems, individual allocation of capital to highest productivity, and the largest axiom of economics, being preference, which is simply the choice of individuals as to where they would like to allocate capital for maximum utility. On the other hand, the axioms used in Marxian, Monetarist, and Keynesian schools of thought are different from those that are used in the Chicago and Austrian schools. Market Monetarists believe that the best possible way to control market fluctuations and account for business cycles is to control and stabilize the currency or legal tender though some form of a centralized banking system, such as the Federal Reserve. Marxian schools of thought revolve around a key standard, being the Labor Theory of Value, in which the value of goods is determined wholly by the productivity and labor that went into the making of such goods, rather than the standard definition of pricing, being the demand for such goods and therefore the supply. Lastly, Keynesian schools of economic thought, most notably that of Professor Paul Krugman and John Maynard Keynes happens to look at markets from a vastly different monetary and fiscal view than that of Chicago and Austrian schools of economic thought. The arguments laid out derive themselves against the axiom of orthodox economic thought of the 20th century, being the gross substitution axiom.

The gross substitution axiom, in short, states that so long as there is a demand for a good, X, then the price of such good will increase as the demand rises, which forces the remainder of the capital to shift to the next good, being Y. This is evident as in any competitive market economy, the stark rises in prices not directly tied to inflation will be met with the production of goods with a relatively cheaper price as to allow for higher quantity of purchasing. The Keynesian model rejects this axiom, stating that not all funds are spent, as much of the disposable income of relatively average individuals is "hoarded", to put into the terms of modern Keynesians. This was then the basis for Keynesian thought, being that the rise of demand of a good will increase the price of this good, but the excess capital will not flow over to the remainder goods, as not all consumer spend frivolously, or at least, all of their earnings in any given sector. This macroeconomic model was the rejection of classical economic axioms. According to Carl Hempel, "mathematics rests neither on its alleged self-evidential character no on any empirical basis, but derives from the stipulations which determine the meaning of the mathematical concepts, and that the propositions of mathematics are therefore essentially "true by definition."" This general argument laid out by Hempel only relates to economic facts on a rational basis, not an empirical basis. It can be argued and set forth as an axiom the lack of government need in stabilizing monetary policy, and as presented by Friedman, this economic concepts bears complexities on its own. However, the argument can still be presented and taken to be a self evidential truth, that from the historical data of government inadequacy in centralizing sound fiscal policy, that same idea can apply to sound monetary policy. From a rational perspective, as well as looking at the effects of inflation on savings and the monetary system itself, it can be derived that there is no need for government intervention in the monetary system of a given nation. On the other hand, it is argued rather well by monetarists, Chicago school adherers, and Keynesians, that regardless of fiscal failures, there is a certain need for government involvement in the monetary system.

Monetarism, as a school, is most closely associated with the work of Friedman himself, and the monetary system that is derived from their argument is that of a pragmatic nature - that bearing the existence of a Federal Reserve, a central bank that is too difficult to get rid of using legislative means, there must be a rejection of the Keynesian policy of government spending, or stimuli, to further exacerbate economic growth, and that it should be replaced with keeping the supply of money and its relative demand at a rate of equilibrium, which is calculated by the growth in productivity and general efficiency. The idea is rejected by Austrian economic thought, as their argument revolves around the usage of a standard commodity for the backing of money, rather than fiat money, being the Gold Standard. The axiom of monetary systems by the Austrian school is derived from the Gold Standard, being that the value of that currency is determined by the value and quantity of the gold that is backing it. Various axioms are used by various schools of economic thought, and these axioms differ as they are argued and proven differently through methodologies that may vary. As stated before, Keynesian and Chicago school methodologies happen to be mostly empirical, while the Heterodox economic schools, such as Marxian, Georgist, and Austrian schools of thought happen to have different methodologies and different outcomes.

If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.

In addition to this, various similarities between these economic schools and the Peano axiom system can be drawn, as well as various differences. The Peano axiom system as a basis for mathematics happens to achieve an outcome of truth by definition, which is also achieved by the foremost axiomatized economic school, being the Austrian school. Austrian economists argue their economic basis on the foundation of a verbal axiomatic system, which is known as praxeology. On the other hand, the basis for schools such as the Chicago school is purely mathematical in nature. The standard economic question happens to be that of maximum efficiency and utility, as any economic principle, hopefully, should strive towards maximizing efficiency of labor, goods, and capital, as well as leading to innovation and higher cases of productivity. These various schools of thought, ranging from the Marxian school on the one hand to the Austrian school on the other happen to derive their assertions from either an axiom of rationalism and sociological basis, or that of an empirical and mathematical basis, thus further solidifying the nature of economics as a scientific field deriving itself from mathematics.In conclusion, the overwhelming usage of mathematics and mathematical principles in the field of economic sciences happens to relate its axioms to being mathematical axioms, rather than economic axioms, as economics delves into fields that are not easily quantifiable, such as human nature. Thus, it is derived that the vast majority of economics, relative to the methodology used, is a system of axiomatic deduction, as evidenced in the aforementioned arguments.

If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.

At 10/10/2016 9:42:54 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:Economics is quite literally an axiomatized deductive system, as it derives its thoughts and principles from various established premises regarding human and market behavior, although the basis for such happens to be disputed. Various economic theories, such as Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman"s consumption analysis, monetary history, and the complexities associated with such is all based upon a system which is established in the neoclassical and neoliberal schools of economic thought. On the other hand, the Labor Theory of Value, most closely associated with Marxian economic principles which were also argued by David Ricardo, happen to be based upon a different axiomatized system, which is argued against by the neoclassical and neoliberal schools of economic thought. Additionally, it happens to be that the basis for certain rationale in respect to the difference between neoclassical and neoliberal schools of thought, being the Austrian and Chicago schools, respectively, is the basis of their methodology. For example, famed Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises" magnum opus, Human Action, happened to encompass this very ideal of a differentiation of methodology, while also coming to relatively the same conclusions with the Chicago School. He argued in such that the very foundation of economic theory could rest upon the axiom of human action, being the individual acts taken for subjective reasons by the populous. The opposition to this, Milton Friedman, argued that the basis for economic sciences should be empirical data and research, called the "positivist methodology". As such, Chicago School economic thought treats the field as an economic science, or a natural science, rather than using a priori logic, which is the basis for Austrian School economic thought. Much like Euclidean geometry, both economic schools approach economics on the basis of certain axioms, being the inefficiency of centralized fiscal systems, individual allocation of capital to highest productivity, and the largest axiom of economics, being preference, which is simply the choice of individuals as to where they would like to allocate capital for maximum utility. On the other hand, the axioms used in Marxian, Monetarist, and Keynesian schools of thought are different from those that are used in the Chicago and Austrian schools. Market Monetarists believe that the best possible way to control market fluctuations and account for business cycles is to control and stabilize the currency or legal tender though some form of a centralized banking system, such as the Federal Reserve. Marxian schools of thought revolve around a key standard, being the Labor Theory of Value, in which the value of goods is determined wholly by the productivity and labor that went into the making of such goods, rather than the standard definition of pricing, being the demand for such goods and therefore the supply. Lastly, Keynesian schools of economic thought, most notably that of Professor Paul Krugman and John Maynard Keynes happens to look at markets from a vastly different monetary and fiscal view than that of Chicago and Austrian schools of economic thought. The arguments laid out derive themselves against the axiom of orthodox economic thought of the 20th century, being the gross substitution axiom.

The gross substitution axiom, in short, states that so long as there is a demand for a good, X, then the price of such good will increase as the demand rises, which forces the remainder of the capital to shift to the next good, being Y. This is evident as in any competitive market economy, the stark rises in prices not directly tied to inflation will be met with the production of goods with a relatively cheaper price as to allow for higher quantity of purchasing. The Keynesian model rejects this axiom, stating that not all funds are spent, as much of the disposable income of relatively average individuals is "hoarded", to put into the terms of modern Keynesians. This was then the basis for Keynesian thought, being that the rise of demand of a good will increase the price of this good, but the excess capital will not flow over to the remainder goods, as not all consumer spend frivolously, or at least, all of their earnings in any given sector. This macroeconomic model was the rejection of classical economic axioms. According to Carl Hempel, "mathematics rests neither on its alleged self-evidential character no on any empirical basis, but derives from the stipulations which determine the meaning of the mathematical concepts, and that the propositions of mathematics are therefore essentially "true by definition."" This general argument laid out by Hempel only relates to economic facts on a rational basis, not an empirical basis. It can be argued and set forth as an axiom the lack of government need in stabilizing monetary policy, and as presented by Friedman, this economic concepts bears complexities on its own. However, the argument can still be presented and taken to be a self evidential truth, that from the historical data of government inadequacy in centralizing sound fiscal policy, that same idea can apply to sound monetary policy. From a rational perspective, as well as looking at the effects of inflation on savings and the monetary system itself, it can be derived that there is no need for government intervention in the monetary system of a given nation. On the other hand, it is argued rather well by monetarists, Chicago school adherers, and Keynesians, that regardless of fiscal failures, there is a certain need for government involvement in the monetary system.

Monetarism, as a school, is most closely associated with the work of Friedman himself, and the monetary system that is derived from their argument is that of a pragmatic nature - that bearing the existence of a Federal Reserve, a central bank that is too difficult to get rid of using legislative means, there must be a rejection of the Keynesian policy of government spending, or stimuli, to further exacerbate economic growth, and that it should be replaced with keeping the supply of money and its relative demand at a rate of equilibrium, which is calculated by the growth in productivity and general efficiency. The idea is rejected by Austrian economic thought, as their argument revolves around the usage of a standard commodity for the backing of money, rather than fiat money, being the Gold Standard. The axiom of monetary systems by the Austrian school is derived from the Gold Standard, being that the value of that currency is determined by the value and quantity of the gold that is backing it. Various axioms are used by various schools of economic thought, and these axioms differ as they are argued and proven differently through methodologies that may vary. As stated before, Keynesian and Chicago school methodologies happen to be mostly empirical, while the Heterodox economic schools, such as Marxian, Georgist, and Austrian schools of thought happen to have different methodologies and different outcomes.